Spaulding v Commonwealth of Australia (No. 2) [2006] NSWSC 81

The appropriate order in this case, considering the discretion under the CPA and UCPR and the circumstances of this application, is that the costs of the application are to be costs in the cause.

Parties: Plaintiff: Barry Thomas Edward Spaulding; Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 27 February 2006
Procedural Posture: Application for Extension of Limitation Period (costs Judgment) / Post Application Costs Determination
Outcome: Costs are to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics: Costs, Extension of Limitation Period

Civil Procedure Costs Extension of Limitation Period

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

Barry Thomas Edward Spaulding

Plaintiff

Commonwealth of Australia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Limitation Period (costs Judgment) / Post Application Costs Determination

Legal Issues

1 Whether the costs for the application to extend the limitation period should follow the event or be costs in the cause

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate order in this case, considering the discretion under the CPA and UCPR and the circumstances of this application, is that the costs of the application are to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Costs are to be costs in the cause.

Orders

The costs of the application are costs in the cause.